Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone want an SS hunting scope?

Any chance that the eye relief is a typo?

It seems awfully odd. I didn't know anyone even tried to make a scope that short since the 1970s.

If it were 3.5-4.3 it would make a lot more sense.

Who's gonna be the first to try one and report back?

Why can’t I find it on their website? Is this a joke? I did a quick search on opticstalk, didn’t see anything about it there either.

It's a joke guys.

Find ya one of these.

I'm not much of a riflescope user, I only have a few of them on rimfires and AR's. Still I was curious about this so I went to a couple of sites like Vortex and Leupold and looked at specs. Most 2X10 scopes had eye relief around 3.2 - 3.5. The Leupolds did have 3.8 in. but they were 1000 dollar plus scopes compared to this 300 dollar scope.

I would think a scope like this would be ideal for a light .260 build or similar to keep the optic weight down without worrying about recoil. Still, is a half inch of eye relief that huge of a thing for a scope 700+ cheaper?

I can understand on a sharp kicking gun and possible out of position shots not wanting to cut yourself, but I thought everyone had a 6.5 creed nowadays.

Might get one for an AR.

3.3" is marginal for safety with anything with even moderate recoil. 2.55" is hazardous, especially prone or at the bench. Get twocked in the eyebrow a time or two and you'll understand.

I'll wait for Jordans report after his statistical analysis is done, before I make a decision whether to purchase or not

This.
Plus Form, Mule Deer, cummins, and of course Ringman.

We don't need any testing to determine that products we've never seen or used suck. It's been proven many times here.

Normally most of the crowd will wait to hear the opinion of one of about 3 members, then parrot that opinion til they're blue in the face.

Absolutely!

I first saw them on my laptop, with its smaller screen, and I thought they suck....and, coffee wasn't ready, yet....

Had coffee been ready and I was on my new high-powered desktop, it would have gotten a much better rating....

Who's getting one to test out for us all?

One extreme to another? From a 14" long, 20 oz. fixed, to a 10" long 9 oz. variable.

Wouldn't the argument that a scope must be a bit heavy to be dependable still apply?

I was thinking 10-12 years ago that I should think outside the Leupold box, but it only gets more confusing.

I don’t need any testing to convince me sub-3” eye relief is a deal breaker....

But, I’d bet on one long before I’d bet on a similar offering from Tract, or Athalon, or GPO.... or Leupold, or Nikon, or Burris, or Zeiss.... etc.

It really is too bad about the eye relief.... I’d have been in for a couple from the get-go.

I’d settle for a 1” version of the 6x MQ. I wouldn’t mind compromising on the elevation range of adjustment either; 60-odd MOA of internal adjustment is miles-enough for me. Sub-16 ounces would be great. Slightly less obtrusive turrets too.

I'm a huge SWFA SS fan, but this is a pass for me. I currently use a SS 3-9x42 with the mil dot reticle on my main hunting rifle and I absolutely love it. It tracks well, is tough (holds up to a lot of abuse), has good enough glass, and has a reticle I really like.

I was excited to see a "hunting" scope from them as the only things I could think of that would make the 3-9x42 a better hunting scope would be capped turrets and lighter weight. However, I saw this thing and it looks like it went back to 1995. I'm not a fan of the standard duplex reticle (I like the mil dot and the mil quad a lot better as I can range with it, use it for holdover, etc.), I'm not a fan of the 32mm objective, and I don't think the eye relief would work out well on any heavy kicking firearms. IMO there are already enough great hunting scopes available for half of the cost of this thing that offer better features. If you don't want the tracking that comes with the SS line, there are quite a few good hunting scopes out there. I'd rather buy a Burris Fullfiled II and save the other $150.

+1 The 3x9 MQ is tough to beat for a hunting scope that lets you shoot long if you need to.

I played with the prototype and thought it was quite nice. I'll have a first look article up shortly and I plan to do a more thorough test when I get a production model here.

Eye relief is pretty flexible, but it is a bit short for a rifle with kick. It will do great on lighter recoiling rifle and on hunting ARs. When I played with it, I thought it would be just perfect for micro actions like CZ 527 and other similar guns.

Somewhere earlier in this thread, someone mentioned an older Sightron S2 2.5-10x32. I had that scope which has similar eye relief on a 7.62x54R and never got touched. I gave it to a friend who still has it on a similar rifle and no issues there either.

The scope is made in Japan if memory serves me right and a lot of effort was put into keeping it very trim without sacrificing durability. This scope has probably the slimmest eyepiece I have seen to date, so the eye relief has to be a bit shorter to maintain good FOV.

Basically, it is not a general purpose hunting scope. It does have its niche and I expect it to do quite well within that niche. Ultralight scopes are far and few in between, so I am pretty curious to see how this one pans out. The most obvious first application for it might be on 300 Blackout boltguns and hunting ARs that I see used more and more by either young hunters starting out or by people running suppressed for night time hog hunting. There, this scope's size and weight are really appropriate.

TO give you an idea of size, in the picture below, it is on the left, next to Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32. If you want a compact hunting scope with long eye relief, the HD LH is an excellent option, but note the difference in eyepiece diameters.



ILya

Thanks for sharing. Good insight.

Now, can they make a general purpose scope? Something like the 3-9 HD, but with capped windage, lower profile elevation dial, reticle good for dark woods and with some windage reference, all in the <15oz range.